|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5079 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Truth About Evolution and Religion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2320 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
bluegenes writes:
I agree completely. I asked him god knows how many question to get a clearer view of his argument, but he either doesn't react at all, or answers with more of his mumbo jumbo. And then he says he finds it hard to believe I don't understand what he is saying!
Actually, the whole damned thread's confusing, because it's hard to figure what its author is actually trying to say! Why the author of the O.P. rambles on about this, and how he connects it to his comments on his god is a mystery.
Indeed. Well, Mr. Roemer, it seems I am certainly not the only one who doesn't understand what you are trying to do here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3399 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
And why is it that so many are deliberate attempts, on someone's part, to deceive the reader? Maybe it is that, instead of promoting moral behaviour as religious types so loudly and persistently claim, religion actually impairs morality. We do constantly see supporting examples of that in these forums.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Even with the filtering, there is no explanation for the increase in the complexity of life. The relevance of this is that you are being deceived by atheistic humanists. Atheistic humanists are people who think they are more rational and enlightened than those who believe in God. But scientists of all religious persuasions support the theory of evolution, not just atheists.
One of the reasons to believe in God is the big bang. Curiously enough, the creationists who deny the big bang tell me that it's an atheist humanist deception. Perhaps you could fight it out amongst yourselves.
There is more than speculation about the cause of evolution ... It's explained by the theory of evolution. I may have mentioned it a few times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fizz57102 Junior Member (Idle past 4031 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Nope, it's a typo. Mea culpa and all that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5079 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
So you admit that the theory of evolution has limited abilities to explain living organisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5079 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
This is a quote from Kenneth Miller. He is disagreeing with Behe about intelligent design, not about evolution and biology:
"In Behe’s view, these are examples of nothing more than a kind of trench warfare in which the two species have progressively disabled or broken parts of themselves in order to survive. Nothing genuinely new, novel, or complex has resulted from this struggle, and we shouldn’t expect otherwise. The reason, according to Behe, is that the sorts of changes we see in this well-studied interaction represent the limit, the edge of what evolution can accomplish. They can go this far and no further. A line in the sand is drawn, and the other side of that line is intelligent design.How does Behe know where to draw that line?" (p. 67, The Battle for America's Soul)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2320 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
ID is a disagreement about biology. This is a quote from Kenneth Miller. He is disagreeing with Behe about intelligent design, not about evolution and biology: Kenneth Miller will absolutely agree about what explains the complexity of life. That would be the theory of evolution. I have absolutely no idea why you pulled out this quote about Behe, as Kenneth Miller's disagreement with Behe is not something I eluded to. Kenneth Miller will tell you that the theory of evolution is the explanation for the complexity of life, as will almost all other biologists, religious or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2320 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
Whatever gave you that bizarre idea? Litterally nothing Dr. Adequate said implies that.
So you admit that the theory of evolution has limited abilities to explain living organisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: I have a deck of cards. I have just arranged them into suits and number order. Have I increased the order of the deck of cards? Have I violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics? dkroemer writes: Yes, you increased the knowledge of the location of the cards. So as far as you are concerned I violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics by simply sorting cards into an ordered pile. Can you explain how I was able to defy this fundamental law of nature so simply and easily? Am I special or can anyone defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics if they so choose?
dkroemer writes: So you admit that the theory of evolution has limited abilities to explain living organisms. Where do you get that from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3399 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined:
|
So you admit that the theory of evolution has limited abilities to explain living organisms. No such admission was made. If you try really, really hard, you might be able to post something truthful. That would be a refreshing change!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5079 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
There seems to be some confusion about terminology. I'v been reading about evolution since 1970s and have had book reviews published about evolution. I must admit, however, that I have only a layman's understanding of evolution. The research that is currently being done is beyond me, so I can only tell you what I mean by the words:
Evolution is the object of study of evolutionary biology.Common descent is also called macroevolution and refers to the 20th century observation that all life evolved from a single bacterium or many bacteria over a period of 3.5 billion years. Adaptation refers to the ancient observation that species adapt to their environment. Theory of evolution is an out-of-date term that was relevant in the 19th and early 20th century. Orthogenesis is the discredited theory that living organisms have an interior drive to evolve into bigger and more complex organisms. Natural selection includes random mutations, survival of the fittest, etc. Facilitated variation is an improvement over natural selection and is considered a refutation of intelligent design. Intelligent design does not deserve a definition because it is not science. It refutes intelligent design because it helps explain adaptation. Since there is no hard and fast line to be drawn between and common descent and adaptation, it can also be regarded as an explanation for common descent. Biologists don't say natural selection and/or facilitated variation explains common descent because it would make them look like they don't understand how complex life is. Second law of thermodynamics states that a system of particles tends towards a state of greater disorder. The free expansion of a gas is an example. It is based on probability theory and statistical mechanics. We can assume that common descent does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. However, non-biologists and crackpots who say there was so much time and so many organism and so many mutations that common descent is explained by natural selection are violating the second law of thermodynamics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
dkroemer writes: Second law of thermodynamics states that a system of particles tends towards a state of greater disorder. dkroemer writes: However, non-biologists and crackpots who say there was so much time and so many organism and so many mutations that common descent is explained by natural selection are violating the second law of thermodynamics. When I placed my deck of cards in order did I defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics? When a baby develops from a zygote to an embryo and then on to a fully formed and functioning baby is the 2nd law of thermodynamics being violated? Maybe you don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2320 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
Yes. It is also the change over time in populations.
Evolution is the object of study of evolutionary biology. Common descent is also called macroevolution and refers to the 20th century observation that all life evolved from a single bacterium or many bacteria over a period of 3.5 billion years.
It's not called macro-evolution. That would be speciation. Also, Darwin already noticed this trend, making common descent way older than just the 20th century.
Adaptation refers to the ancient observation that species adapt to their environment.
I don;t know how ancient it is, but the rest seems accurate.
Theory of evolution is an out-of-date term that was relevant in the 19th and early 20th century.
It's not out of date, in fact it's still the name of the theory that explains evolution. Just like "gravitational theory" is still the theory that explains gravity.
Orthogenesis is the discredited theory that living organisms have an interior drive to evolve into bigger and more complex organisms.
Yes, something like that.
Natural selection includes random mutations, survival of the fittest, etc.
Does not include random mutations, survival of the fittest is a consequence of natural selection. I don't know what you meant with your etc. here, so no comment on that. Natural selection is the pressure the environment puts on individuals. Those individuals who have genes (that are a result of random mutation) that give them traits that make them handle those pressures better, and reproduce better, will spread those genes and traits through the population, until eventually almost or all members of the population have those same genses and traits.
Facilitated variation is an improvement over natural selection and is considered a refutation of intelligent design.
Intelligent design needs no improvement to natural selection to show that it's bullcrap. Specifically, Facilitated variation show irreducible complexity (one thing put forward by ID people) to be incorrect very effectively.
Intelligent design does not deserve a definition because it is not science.
Quite correct.
Since there is no hard and fast line to be drawn between and common descent and adaptation, it can also be regarded as an explanation for common descent.
It's a very incomplete explanation then.
Biologists don't say natural selection and/or facilitated variation explains common descent because it would make them look like they don't understand how complex life is.
No. they don't say that because the theory of evolution explains complexity. Why would they something explains complexity, when they know something else does.
Second law of thermodynamics states that a system of particles tends towards a state of greater disorder.
Well no, that's just how you apply t here. Also note that this is only the case in a closed system, in an open system (Earth) this is not the case.
The free expansion of a gas is an example.
No, the heat lost during that expansion is an example.
It is based on probability theory and statistical mechanics.
No it isn't. It is based upon observations made concerning heatflow.
We can assume that common descent does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Of course not, so far as we know, nothing does, that's why it's called a law.
However, non-biologists and crackpots who say there was so much time and so many organism and so many mutations that common descent is explained by natural selection are violating the second law of thermodynamics.
No they aren't. Saying or writing something does not violate the second law. Also, they are wrong, because they should say tat the theory of evolution explains common descent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
dkroemer writes: Facilitated variation is an improvement over natural selection.... dk writes: However, non-biologists and crackpots who say there was so much time and so many organism and so many mutations that common descent is explained by natural selection are violating the second law of thermodynamics. Do you understand what I'm saying when I point out that what Kirschner and Gerhart describe as "facilitated variation" is itself a product of random variation and natural selection? It is put forward by them to explain the phenomenon of relatively rapid (in geological time) diversification and increases in complexity in organisms in recent evolution (the last 500 million years, basically). It has been selected for itself because of its obvious advantages in adaption. It is put forward as an explanation of the "variation" part of Darwins theory. They describe it as "Resolving Darwin's Dillemma" because Darwin had no way of knowing how the variation that he observed was produced. (He didn't even know about "genes" anyway). People who explain the diversity of life around us, speciation, and therefore common descent as happening under the broad umbrella description of "variation and natural selection" are not "violating the 2nd LoT". That's pretty much what it actually comes down to, and the "facilitated variation" or "evolved adaptability" that you've latched on to is part of the process. So, what's your problem, exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3399 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
There seems to be some confusion about terminology. I'v been reading about evolution since 1970s and have had book reviews published about evolution. I must admit, however, that I have only a layman's understanding of evolution. The research that is currently being done is beyond me, so I can only tell you what I mean by the words: I thought you could post something accurate if you really tried. Unfortunately, a good deal of your post is incorrect, disingenuous, or trivial. Please see Huntard's post for details. I am puzzled that you see fit to make authoritative-sounding pronouncements about things that you yourself admit that you understand only to a limited extent.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024